• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Doctors Making Decisions-Should I Have A Firearm?

packingdressagerider

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
300
Location
Some where in Rockbridge County, Virginia, USA
imported post

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56311
WND.logo.116x19.gif

Thursday, June 21, 2007

[size=-1]Posted: June 21, 2007
11:04 p.m. Eastern

[/size]

[font="Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]By Naomi Laine


[size=-1]©2007WorldNetDaily.com [/size]



[align=left]


mccarthy.jpg

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., announcing a provision to allow doctors to ban people from owning guns
The House of Representatives has fast-tracked new legislation to "improve" the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by allowing doctors to now decide who can own firearms.
The proposal, H.R. 2640, was sponsored by U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., in the wake of the April tragedy at Virginia Tech, when a gunman shot and killed more than 30 people, then killed himself.
McCarthy, whose own husband was killed in a random shooting on a commuter train in New York City in 1993, introduced the "NICS Improvement Act," which sailed through the House in three days.
The plan is the first congressional effort to curtail gun ownership rights in a decade, but by being put on the fast track was exempted from the ordinary committee hearings and public scrutiny most proposals are sent through.
(Story continues below)
"Millions of criminal records are not accessible by NICS and millions others are missing critical data," said McCarthy. "Each year, tens of thousands of barred individuals slip through the cracks of the system and gain access to firearms. Simply put, the NICS system must be updated on both the state and federal level."
If the Act passes in the Senate, it would provide grants so states can add the names of criminals to the NICS system, which would label them as unable to own firearms, but it also flags those with medical or psychological issues as unfit to possess a gun.
The plan allows names to be entered into the NICS system based solely on a physician's diagnosis or prescription of a medication: adults who have taken Ritalin and soldiers with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder would be classified as mentally ill and given the same opportunity to own firearms as convicted felons: None.
]http://www.gunowners.org/a061807.htm]Gun Owners of America[/url] is one of only a few organizations alerting consumers to the implications.
"Under this bill, based solely on a diagnosis of a psychiatrist, an American's name could be dumped into the National Criminal Instant Check (NICS) system," said GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt, who called the plan "conviction by diagnosis."
The organization, which launched a campaign to lobby the Senate to reject the plan, said the McCarthy plan "dramatically" expands the "dragnet" used to disqualify law-abiding gun buyers.
"So much so, that hundreds of thousands of honest citizens who want to buy a gun will one day walk into a gun store and be shocked when they're told they're a prohibited purchaser, having been lumped into the same category as murderers and rapists," the organization said in a statement on its website.
The legislation requires states to better share records that would disqualify individuals deemed unfit for gun ownership by inputting those names into the FBI’s Instant Criminal Background Check System.
"This underscores the problems that have existed all along with the Brady Law. At the time it was passed, some people foolishly thought, 'No big deal. I'm not a bad guy. This law won't affect me.' But what happens when good guys' names get thrown into the bad guys' list? That is exactly what has happened, and no one should think that the attempts to expand the gun control noose are going to end with the McCarthy bill," the gun owners group continued.
"Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign, Paul Helmke, stated that, 'We're hopeful that now that the NRA has come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill passes [to impose additional gun control],'" said the gun owners.
"Get it? The McCarthy bill is just a first step," the group said.
The Act is a response to the Virginia Tech tragedy.
Tech student Seung-Hui Cho was not flagged when he purchased guns, although the state of Virginia knew Cho had been ordered to undergo mental health treatment. No evidence indicates that Cho could have been stopped from opening fire on classmates had the new changes been in place at the time of the shooting.
The National Rifle Association has endorsed the plan as a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. [/align][/font]
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

It's no surprise to anyone on this board that the rule of law is not only dead, but has been for quite some time. "Those people" do not have any respect for the rights of others. History clearly teaches me what IS going to occur to correct the long train of abuses. I can hardly wait.
 

unrequited

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
1,407
Location
Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
imported post

Ritalin? Are these people crazy themselves? This is one of the most (overly) prescribed drugs for kids and teenagers, and they want to mark all of them mentally defective? Good luck.

**edit**looking through the actual proposal here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640

i didn't find anything with my search box, but I don't have the time to read it thoroughly right now**edit
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

'Nuff said.
[align=left]
[font="Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"] The National Rifle Association has endorsed the plan as a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. [/font]
[/align]
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$ (For NRA apologists, we are not equal,y'all and I.)
 

Meathook

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
54
Location
, ,
imported post

I wrote the NRA telling them that as a member I felt they had sold out and all I got was an propaganda email back.

Funny how they can't communicate with the membership before jumping in bed with McCarthy to get their view on things but they can send out 3 letters a week asking for money.

I still think the cause is better with the NRA I am beginning to question how much better.

:uhoh:
 

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

I'm still not convinced that there is any real change in the law in this. It only changes the reporting of persons ruled incompetent and/or committed, but does not create any disability by fiat on the part of shrinks. Likewise, there is no automatic "Ritalin" rule or any prohibition of servicemen who may have PTSD (this is absolute bullshit), unless they've been committed or represent a danger to themselves or others, as established by judicial process. The law already provides for this due process requirement. Why is this only now outrageous since it's been the law for over a decade? Does Larry Pratt (GOA) know how to read? I really have to wonder. The NRA is supporting this, and I, for one, don't consider them to be liberal "anti" stooges (I am not a member, so this is not a partisan NRA/GOA fight).

Suggestion: let's all read the actual text of the bill and judge based on that. Simple enough? If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but I do not concede at this point.

-ljp
 

Meathook

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
54
Location
, ,
imported post

It is bad law no matter how you slice it.

If people are criminals and a threat to society to a point they should not have a gun then they should still be in prison.

If they are a threat to themselves or others to a point they should not have a gun they should be in treatment and not on the street.

Once they are "back on the street" they should be able to carry a gun to protect themselves just like anyone else.

The only thing the NRA offers in any gun fight is numbers. But when they don't even solicit the input of their membership there is something seriously wrong in my view.
 

packingdressagerider

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
300
Location
Some where in Rockbridge County, Virginia, USA
imported post

unrequited wrote:
Ritalin? Are these people crazy themselves? This is one of the most (overly) prescribed drugs for kids and teenagers, and they want to mark all of them mentally defective? Good luck.

**edit**looking through the actual proposal here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640

i didn't find anything with my search box, but I don't have the time to read it thoroughly right now**edit
Strange about the Ritalin. There were so many kids at the NRA/4-H Shooting Sports Camp at Holiday Lake in 1997 who were on Ritalin. I know, because I was Camp Nurse, and managed their care. Does any body realize, that any drug, especially one for depression, and maybe even chronic pain could disqualify a person under this idiot proposed law? But the high and mighty politicos who want their own firearms will find a way to own them. The serfs, will be left with pitchforks, slings, and arrows.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

[font="Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]The National Rifle Association has endorsed the plan in 'The conspiracy of ignorance masquerading as common sense." Jus' good ol' boyz and their politics. Unless you're a life member (a thirty-second degree gallus-snapper) you couldn't understand such esoterica.
[/font]
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
imported post

Legba, you are guilty of rational thought and being out of step with the party line. Expect to be attacked and derided as a troll or anti or both. You are quite correct in your analysis but you see this does not matter to the full mooners on this board. Most who post have not read or do not understand the bill. They only know the talking points they have read on a blog. Others think that because the other side exaggerates and lies, they have to do the same to "even it out." This is a losing proposition but some people just don't want to know. I think the bill is a bad idea but I don't need to mischaracterize it to come to that conclusion.

Legba wrote:
I'm still not convinced that there is any real change in the law in this. It only changes the reporting of persons ruled incompetent and/or committed, but does not create any disability by fiat on the part of shrinks. Likewise, there is no automatic "Ritalin" rule or any prohibition of servicemen who may have PTSD (this is absolute bullshit), unless they've been committed or represent a danger to themselves or others, as established by judicial process. The law already provides for this due process requirement. Why is this only now outrageous since it's been the law for over a decade? Does Larry Pratt (GOA) know how to read? I really have to wonder. The NRA is supporting this, and I, for one, I don't consider them to be liberal "anti" stooges (I am not a member, so this is not a partisan NRA/GOA fight).

Suggestion: let's all read the actual text of the bill and judge based on that. Simple enough? If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but I do not concede at this point.

-ljp
 

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

Sorry - won't happen again. I think I'll buy a Fabrique Nationale P9 (for $300) as an act of contrition. ;-/

-ljp
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
imported post

Legba wrote:
I'm still not convinced that there is any real change in the law in this. It only changes the reporting of persons ruled incompetent and/or committed, but does not create any disability by fiat on the part of shrinks.

-ljp

This legislation does not increase the numbers of prohibited persons; it just makes the data on who’s prohibited centrally accessible. The problem I have with this reporting requirement is there is no automatic removal from the “list” when your status as a prohibited person changes. In some states having someone involuntarily committed for observation is relatively easy.

If certain criteria automatically put you on the list, the reversal of those criteria should also automatically remove you from the list. My “beef” is our current prohibited person system makes it very onerous if not impossible to get off the list. Look at felons; how many felons have gotten off the list using the legally prescribed procedures for restoration?

We report the arrests, convictions and commitments, but when there is a reversal we leave the subject (often the victim) to clean up the records. This often requires petitions and multiple court appearances and follow-up.

If this bill passes one fact will remain; it will not stop a mad gunman, but it will make a lot of people feel good until the next rampage.
 

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

Quite so. I am not entirely unconcerned about this. I do know that it usually takes several months for, say, a felon to obtain an expunction after he/she qualifies (many jurisdicions don't allow this at all, and there are a lot of agencies and databases that have to be dereferenced where it is possible). I am less familiar with civil commitment proceedings. I expect they are an even bigger hassle to get past, because there are doctors involved, in addition to the usual legal wrangling. The proposed law does, at least theoretically, provide such relief though, so we'll see how it works in practice.

I did notice one curious provision concerning drug addicts/alcoholics. If you read the fine print, you'll see that someone who voluntarily submits to treatment, including methadone maintenance, will not be subject to the mandatory reporting, unless it is court-ordered (hence involuntary, which is absurd because no court requires any addict to go on methadone),so even though drug addicts are supposed to be prohibited persons, this looks to be a rather glaring loophole already. No law is perfect, to be sure, any more than any person is. Also, you are quite correct to state the obvious that mad-dog criminals will not be affected, as they are already outside the "legitimate" demand for guns anyway.

So, I concede that there are problems, both theoretical and practical with this, but I still submit that it doesn't change things greatly. I'm not worried, for my part, and I make my living from the gun trade.

-ljp
 

Meathook

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
54
Location
, ,
imported post

If it doesn't change anything and doesn't prevent crime(what law does) then why put it in place? It is a stepping stone for more of the same. Keep puting little changes in place until it is impossible for citizens not to be breaking the law. :banghead:
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Meathook wrote:
If it doesn't change anything and doesn't prevent crime(what law does) then why put it in place?  It is a stepping stone for more of the same.  Keep puting little changes in place until it is impossible for citizens not to be breaking the law. :banghead:

You weren't suposed to notice.:banghead:
 

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

I guess you'd have to ask Frau McCarthy what she hopes to accomplish. A few nutcases might be discouraged from getting guns at a retail shop, which is OK with me (saves me some paperwork, maybe), but it's no panacea, to be sure.

-ljp
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

We do not want psychiatrists making these decisions with their pseudo-science.

Check out this little expose I found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b30iwhEw9ho.

Also, the NICS enhancement may not change much; but in Virginia we're in for some changes. An article ran in today's Washington Times saying in short that everybody connected with the mental health commitment process was dissatisfied with it, as determined bya study started in 2006 before the VT shootings.

Want to bet theGovernor's Panel starts making recommendations to stream-line getting committed? And with the new scrutiny on the system, want tobet that moreadministrative types and doctors take the safe, CYA route and commit anybody for the least thing. "Feels depressed for the last two weeks, since his fiancee broke off the engagement. Commit to community psychiatric ward forfurther evaluation and treatment." Signed:Dr. ScmuckSpecial Note: Subject/patient owns multiple firearms.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

I wonder what's going to happen to the people that are prescribed seroquil as a sleeping aid. It also doubles as a mild anti-psychotic. This bill is the biggest piece of crap I have seen in a while.
 
Top